The kidnapping of the Brazilian heroes and other pacifists from the flotilla demands general mobilization and a stronger reaction from Brazil.

A modern act of piracy was committed in international waters. The interception by the Israeli Navy of the Global Sumud Flotilla, which was transporting humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip, and the subsequent kidnapping of hundreds of peaceful activists, including Brazilian citizens, represents a direct affront to Brazilian sovereignty and the most basic principles of international law. Among the volunteers kidnapped by Israel is the Brazilian Miguel Viveiros de Castro, who, while he was able, actively participated in TV 247's programming from one of the flotilla's boats, bringing direct information to the Brazilian public about the mission and the peaceful resistance it represented.

The members of the flotilla, amidst so many allegations of weakness and even undisguised betrayals, resolved to take matters into their own hands regarding the Zionist genocide in Gaza. The struggle changes in quality with their sacrifice. The planet watches their fight. Like the Paris Commune and the international brigades of the Spanish Civil War, they resolved, in the name of international conscience, to storm the heavens. They now suffer the full burden of torture from the supremacist state.

Given the gravity of the situation, the Brazilian government's response, while initially correct in its condemnation, proves insufficient. It is time for a more energetic and coherent reaction that goes beyond traditional diplomacy and mobilizes all available instruments of pressure, accompanied by a massive movement of civil society. Colombia, for example, in response to the kidnapping of its citizens on the flotilla, expelled Israeli diplomats.
The unprecedented and massive mobilization of Italian workers, on the other hand, serves as an example and a mirror for what is expected of Brazil.

The interception operation was inherently illegal. The vessels were boarded dozens of kilometers off the Palestinian coast, in international waters. The volunteers, heroes carrying food, drinking water, medicine, and toys, were treated as combatants. Reports indicate that, after their capture, they were forced to kneel with their hands tied for hours. The Israeli government, by initially denying consular and legal access to the detainees, further aggravated this violation. The kidnapped members of the flotilla were confined in a prison in the Negev desert, 30 kilometers from the Egyptian border. Hiding the whereabouts of people and then hindering their contact with the outside world are unacceptable tactics.

Faced with this affront, Brazil's diplomatic position needs to evolve from statements of condemnation to concrete and consequential actions. Brazilian leadership in a complaint before the UN Human Rights Council, supported by dozens of countries, is an important, albeit timid, first step. It is imperative that the government immediately adopt all necessary measures to guarantee the lives and physical integrity of the kidnapped citizens. This requires more forcefully activating all multilateral bodies and mobilizing the BRICS and Latin American forums to politically isolate Israel.

Consistency is fundamental. How can Brazil condemn the kidnapping of its citizens while simultaneously maintaining virtually unchanged commercial, military, and academic relations with the government that committed this act? Representatives of civil society have already demanded a complete break in relations. A passive position that prioritizes commercial interests over human lives and national sovereignty itself needs to be reviewed. The pressure for the country to adopt a policy of Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions is not radicalism, but a legitimate diplomatic tool consistent with the gravity of the facts.

Let's use the altruism of the flotilla as a paradigm. International experience demonstrates that real change will not come solely from meeting rooms where petty cost-benefit calculations prevail, but from the organized force of society. The most striking and recent example comes from Italy, where a national general strike paralyzed the country. The action, called by major trade union federations, brought hundreds of thousands of people to the streets in Rome and millions in more than one hundred Italian cities. Italian unions explicitly stated that the strike was to show solidarity with the people of Gaza and to protest against the humanitarian blockade and the interception of the Global Sumud Flotilla. The strike affected crucial sectors: rail and urban transport, schools, and public services were interrupted, with protests even blocking ports and highways. This was not an isolated protest, but a coordinated act of force by the workers' movement, showing that internationalist solidarity can and should be exercised through the disruption of the economy that indirectly sustains oppression. The movement is spreading across continents.

This historic moment shines a spotlight on the Brazilian popular movement. Where are the leading forces, the Brazilian labor unions, in this moment of internationalist action? While Italian workers downed their arms and paralyzed their country in defense of humanity, the voices of Brazilian entities of similar stature seem muffled. Brazilian students took to the streets in protest, holding demonstrations in front of the Itamaraty Palace in Brasília and other cities, condemning the interception of the flotilla as an act of kidnapping and demanding a firmer stance from the government, including breaking off relations with Israel. The Brazilian labor movement has a historical tradition of fighting not only for better wages, but for human rights and social justice. This is a moment to reclaim that internationalist tradition. The absence of large-scale symbolic strikes, following the Italian example, is an omission that weakens global pressure on Israel and leaves Brazilian citizens feeling threatened and the Palestinian people with less effective solidarity.

It is true that, in an atomized way, mobilization occurs in Brazil with vigils and public acts, but it needs to be amplified by the strength of workers and organized social sectors. It is time for unions, student organizations, universities, social movements, and political parties to transform indignation into coordinated and permanent action.

The termination of agreements with Israeli universities, adopted by the Federal Fluminense University and Unicamp, is an example to be followed.

The streets must echo with demands for the immediate release of all activists, an end to the blockade of Gaza, and a distancing from Israel. The fight for the freedom of the kidnapped Brazilians is the same fight for the lives of the Palestinian people and for the defense of an effective international order. The prospect of a still uncertain and dubious "peace plan" in the region does not change what is at stake.

Brazil cannot remain silent. It is time for Brazilian workers, following the example of their Italian counterparts, to show that internationalism is not an empty word, but a class practice. It is time for reaction, in official spheres and, above all, in the streets.